Voter I D

Is voter ID passage inevitable?Probably.Is voter ID necessary?Probably not.The electorate is pretty honest relative to elections.The real problem is getting them to vote at all.It's much easier to deter them.Most dishonesty originates with the politicians and that's where voter the ID question originates.Everyone knows that the object is to deter voters.

The Pioneer Press claimed that 1000 felons voted in a previous election.They can in many states.Can you envision a felon jeopardizing his status simply to vote?That claim is pretty ridiculous and obviously a deceptive argument.It would be more reasonable to question why a felon can't vote.

The potential voters with no ID or precinct or district issues will probably vote for IDs;consequently,it will probably pass.After passage,anyone that must inconvenience themselves,in any way,will simply not vote.This deterrence will continue to work until a constituent really wants to vote.I don't see that happening until we have real campaign reform.When money doesn't control politics and anyone can run for office,if that ever happens,perhaps more constituents may want to vote.If they could have a real representative to vote for,that could inspire a desire to vote.Then voter ID could be more than a deterrent.Until then,even more power to money.Wouldn't it be nice to be governed by leaders and representatives that actually reflected the constituency?

Supreme Court-Affordable Care Act

It's pretty obvious(at least to me)that the American public is being duped and has been for a long time.If we limit this to an assessment of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Health Care Act,it is really obvious.The Supreme Court money reps wanted the bill to remain,primarily for the insurance industry,but didn't want to give the executive branch any potential power in the commerce area ;so,they had to do it surreptitiously and found a way in the tax and spend area.

I really think that(even with the dissent opinions) all of the money justices were in accorrd with the Robert's method.The precedent was set in Massachusetts and also would make the democrats look devious in their passage of the law.It also could give them impetus for the future.I also  think that the decision was made in advance and in collusion.

After the citizen's united vote, it was apparent that this court was completely subservient to the money interests;was completely biased and unabashedly so.Even the money controlled media had to finally  acquiesce and reveal that bent.Consequently,the court had to temper the burgeoning attack on it's reputation.Conjecture is that Roberts bolted on his own.I don't believe that he did,but that he had to make it appear that way.

Government Lobbying

How can public entities decry lobbying and then allow government departments to pay for lobbying and lobbyists.Something is wrong here.Mn. cities,countys,school districts and others spent 8.3 million in 2011,$55,000(.7 % )more than last year on lobbying;why and for what?The city of Mpls.spent $467,139,The coalition of Mn. cities-$822,239,The league of Mn. cities-$608,961,Mn School Boards Association -$606,961,Association of Metro School Districts-$280,981,etc.It sounds like they even pay their own employees extra to lobby,Can that be true?I hope not.That should be part of their jobs.Should government entities be spending money to get money?Can they logically justify doing that?

Bully?

Is Romney a bully?He obviously was as a youth.Has he changed?He became a corporate raider(now euphemistically called a private equity firm),and a corporate raider is really a bully.They act and look like a bully.They take over a company,sell the profitable  parts,lay off as many workers as they can,and leave the core without their profitable parts to sink or swim.That sounds like an act of a bully.I think he's still a bully.What do you think?

Corporate Greed

Ref:Newspaper article 3/01/12(Pioneer Press)
Is greed rampant in corporations?Wall Street figures are revelatory.Total corporate profits in 2010 were 27.6 billion;bonuses were22.9 billion(80%).In 2011 profits were 13.5 billion;bonuses-19.7 billion(146%).I other words,all of corporate profits go to upper employee bonuses.Does that indicate greed?And some want to let that same sector take care of social needs.In the "olden" days,part of company profits went to employees for heathcare and pensions.Today they charge employees for healthcare and provide 401K's in place of pensions and invest in areas that they can milk for profit until it suddenly becomes worthless(derivatives) and the employees are left with no pensions.In the end the corporations have much more profit for bonuses and the employees?Well,the private sector will keep caring for them as they have since greed began to dominate.

Austerity

Austere and austerity are interesting words to use and apply in an economic context.Austere means stern,cold,somber,grave,giving little or no scope for pleasure,ascetic.Austerity means enforced or extreme economy,ascetic practice.There is nothing wrong with practicing austerity,but enforced austerity should not be selective and should be enforced equally,don't you think?Austerity for the rich:no pensions,no health insurance,no corporate welfare.That would be different and extremely unlikely.

Revolt

Is it happening?Maybe it's happening:France,Greece,austerity rejection.Austerity is a euphemism for stealing from the poor and middle class and giving  to the rich,all the wealth to the wealthy.The peons pay for everything.But perhaps it's changing.Perhaps the revolt is beginning.Perhaps we can learn from Europe.In France and Greece,most of the money is concentrated in the hands of the few,too much to allow a life for everyone.It's happening here,has been for a long time,and getting progressively worse.Everyone can learn from Greece.

The rich are going to have to quit taking and give up some of their money,or it will have to be taken from them.It would be nice if we could do it through the political process.It can be done They have shown us how.That's how democracy is supposed to work.But we must do it.